Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 34

Proposed change to first sentence

MOS:OPEN says:

• The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
• If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence
• If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition
• Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.
• Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

The current first sentence, The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. falls afoul of all these recommendations. It is possible to ignore the guidance with good reasons, but no reasons have been provided.

As a replacement, I suggest that the first sentence becomes Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories are unfounded claims about the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism, particularly among United States political conservatives since the 1990s.

This conforms to all of the listed recommendations of MOS:OPEN. The details of exactly what those claims are, and the extent to which they are antisemitic, should be left to follow-on sentences. This framing is derived from the "Background" and "Conspiracy theories" article sections, as should be the case for lede text. There is an abundance of citations from which to choose representative examples, for those who feel the lede needs them.

In the prior thread there was some support and some opposition to this. The opposition was of a very general character, so take this new thread as an opportunity to be specific. Sennalen (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It is possible to ignore the guidance with good reasons, but no reasons have been provided.

Yes they have, you just weren't present for them. Which is fine. One of those reasons is that the page is for a WP:FRINGE theory (see that policy page for details).

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.

The current lead actually already does this. The page is about a term which refers to a conspiracy theory. This is because "Cultural Marxism" is not a common phrase or area of thought, and so it having been turned into a pronoun to encapsulate a conspiracy theory makes it a new term (rendered in specifics by the conspiracy theory usage, FROM a more generalized pair of words). We are literally telling the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is. This Wikipedia page aims to describe the new term for what it is; a conspiracy theory.

If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.

Again, as I mentioned in the prior discussion; MOS is a style guide. It's not a policy page. So we can assume policy pages outrank it. WP:NEOLOGISM is the reason the title of the page is not "Cultural Marxism" (which I assume is what you're getting at). However, I put it to you (as I have many times before) - that this page is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and ergo, the current title does match the subject of the page.

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition

Again, this page is about the birth of the conspiracy theory as a neologism (fun fact, it used to be called "The Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" - and that's still one of the redirects to this page [1]), and so the current lead aims to give a concise definition. It's a complicated topic. The article Marxist cultural analysis is also a complicated topic by the way, yet its lead also attempts a concise definition.... and those two definitions are on two different pages for specific policy based reasons.

Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.

As stated above, this article is about a term, which refers to a conspiracy theory. It's a term because it's a type of neologism, where a paired set of general terms "cultural" and "Marxism" have been combined and capitalized to mean something specific (a conspiracy theory about a Marxist take over)... and YES these two general words ("cultural" next to "Marxism") have been found within a couple of academic texts. I'm sure we could find lots of words that appear next to each other in a repeated fashion in lots of academic texts, that doesn't make them notable enough for a Wikipedia article. In this case our understanding of the term "Cultural Marxism" is based on what the reliable sources say... and if it is to mean "what Marxists think about culture" - well, we have a page for that at Marxist cultural analysis.

Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

Again, the rest of the lead does contain relevant information. Is there something in particular you're wanting to remove?

In closing; content policies outrank the style guidelines, and there's still no reliable source being presented that warrants any changes. Your not being familiar with the policy justifications surrounding this WP:FRINGE term, does not invalidate them. These previous discussions are available both in the extensive archives of this talk page, as well as in the AfD discussion (linked in the previous section), which I'll add, was closed by 3 WP:uninvolved administrators, as well as elsewhere. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The idea that the topic is the phrase "cultural Marxism" rather than the actual phenomenon of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a total non-starter. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Many of the figures who are said to support the conspiracy don't use the phrase at all, including the original Minnicino essay. A group of Norwegian teenagers was not murdered by a phrase. The subject of the article is a sociopolitical phenomenon and a set of contested truth claims. None of your other objections that are built on that interpretation can survive.

If there's something in FRINGE that supports deviating from standard practice on the lede, link or quote the exact section. Sennalen (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's both. It's both the conspiracy theory and the neologism used to label the conspiracy theory, hence why the article both tracks the development of the term (starting in the 1990s) and why the term's usage is constantly referred to through out.

Many of the figures who are said to support the conspiracy don't use the phrase at all, including the original Minnicino essay. I've never argued that the Minnicino essay was the origin, and actually - the article doesn't either. It says it's been described as the starting point of the conspiracy theory - and in my view, should really be put in the context of the one person who has described it that way. Chip Berlet. I believe he's been given the weight of Wikivoice because he's both an accepted expert in conspiracy theories, as well as an accepted expert and researcher on extremist right wing movements.

But no, I have no fealty to that particular claim sorry, I believe in only using sources which explicitly include the term. So on that much I'd agree with you... further to this point, I believe the term's right wing usage originates with Lind and Weyrich, as reflected in Weyrich's 1999 letter to conservatives [2] (which even targets Disney, just as alt-right figures do today), and the corroborating evidence of Lind writing that Weyrich asked him to come up with a history for the term [3], [4]. Of course combined with all the reliable sources who cite the two as early proponents.

What's more, and as background furthering my opinion it's well known that William S. Lind is friends with Paul Gottfried (a student of Marcuse)... the two actually have an article somewhere together about Wikipedia's treatment of this topic. Gottfried himself has rejected the conspiracy theory in this article here: [5]. However Weyrich (in that 1999 letter) expresses his belief that Marcuse' Repressive Tolerance essay[6] can be taken as PROOF of the conspiracy theory... and stuck in the middle, their mutual friend: William S. Lind.

...I believe Weyrich is misinterpreting Marcuse who in that essay has some recommendations for occasions when democratic rights "are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination". Weyrich (I assume) takes this brief statement from a refugee of the Nazis discussing situations in which democracy is blocked as a permanent position of the entire leftwing of politics (that they are at root and by definition; Marxist subversives. A viewpoint which erases all liberal or libertarian thought in one conservative swoop). But that's my own original research. What is NOT original research however, is the fact that Paul Weyrich did use the term Cultural Marxism in a way that aligns with the conspiracy theory, and that he asked William S. Lind to come up with an article detailing their believed history of the conspiracy.

Perhaps Lind even asked Gottfried for his input, and a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I think these sources (along with Willis Carto inviting Lind to the Barnes Review holocaust denial conference a few years after Weyrich's letter) makes more sense as a starting point, and I think it's an origin that focuses on explicit usages and spread of the term.

I reference fringe to reaffirm that we a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. - although I suppose I could have also mentioned WP:Due, or WP:Notable, or WP:RS. All these policies apply in their own way. I think if you want the first sentence changed, you might have to mock up a couple of paragraphs capable of replacing the lead section entirely. I'm not saying you'll be successful, but it's hard to tell whether one or two sentences are an improvement when they're presented out of context, and piggy-backing on a discussion about antisemitism. A messy start with a perceived lack of clarity or purpose, will often lead to a messy end to a discussion. I think that's what we encountered above. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's Martin Jay who identifies Minnicino as the origin, although Woods revealed that that Minnicino only surfaced something from LaRouche ideology into the mainstream. It started with LaRouche in his Marxist guru phase thinking of Marcuse as a personal rival for student recruits.

It's possible, like you suggest, that LaRouche and Lind are a case of accidental convergence. After all they both read, understood, and described the actual philisophical output of Western Marxism, including Marcuse's apologia for political censorship. There's simply no RS for that theory, though.

The content of Western Marxism is in fact broadly supported by scholarship in its field and so when we affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea that includes detailing what the conspiracy theorists invented but also where they simply echo accepted knowledge. Some of our best sources, including Jamin, Lynn, Lütticken, and Tuters do exactly that. This is covered in the body text, so the lede should reflect it.

There is still no convincing reason to deviate from the MOS. Sennalen (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe we are deviating from the MOS. As 14.202.44.246 says, the current lead ticks all the required boxes. By selective quoting, it might seem that If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence applies, but it doesn't. That has exceptions. Notably If the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text which applies here. Also, just in case anyone happens to be thinking this, rewriting the opening sentence would not be ammunition for trying to change any of the redirects that happen to point to this article. MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I've already mentioned to you that Western Marxism includes structural marxists, who are NOT cultural Marxists. I've mentioned it 3 times in the past two days. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

an aside on Paul Gottfried

You have misread the link where you say Paul Gottfried rejected the conspiracy theory. What he rejected was attaching the name of Marx to it. In other respects, such as the idea there is widespread entryism in academia and that Marcuse was instrumental to the idea of political correctness, he is basically in agreement with Lind. They key to understanding Gottfried is that he is a Deutschaboo. In a clear example of the aestheticization of politics, he romanticized Europe by the time he was a college student encountering Marcuse. He hated Marcuse and student radicals because they seemed to him a corrupting American influence on beloved Europe. For Gottfried, distancing Marx from Marcuse is about distancing American culture wars from a refined European Marxist tradition. Sennalen (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't love the "refers to" phrasing, but it's possible to rewrite that out without so many changes to the current lead line. We could go with "Proponents of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory use the term "Cultural Marxism" to misrepresent the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. While I agree with others here that there is nothing wrong with the current opening sentence, this one strikes me as a marginal improvement. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I would not stand in the way of that particular change going on the page, but it only solves one of the several problems, so deliberations will continue. Sennalen (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make the change. Does anyone besides Sennalen think that further "deliberations" are needed here? Generalrelative (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No, Sennalen has made mountains out of a molehill here. And it's not the first time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Resurrecting a subthread here: this lead rewrite proposal got some support and was implemented by Generalrelative. It was then reverted by I am a leaf, who said

"With all due respect, the lead already not good and was made even worse by the previous edit. This article (and the topic sentence) is about the theory, not the proponents of the theory. The talk page suggests this change is even less representative of wiki's style guide. I don't entirely agree with the sentence I'm reverting to, but this revert is far better than the edit"

I agree the lead sentence should be about the theory, but the status quo is that it seems to be about the term. I would think an emphasis on proponents is better than on emphasis on terminology. I'm also not sure which style guide the proposal falls afoul of, but it was aimed at moving as away from a MOS:REFERS style issue, which is present in the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the excerpts from MOS:OPEN as mentioned by Sennalen at the top of this thread. I found your edit to be more cumbersome while not really being more informative, although if consensus is there regarding your edit it doesn't really matter what I find cumbersome. I wholeheartedly agree that an emphases on proponents would be better than an emphasis on terminology. I am a Leaf (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Noting here that some related discussion is also happening at Talk:Western_Marxism#Removal_of_pertinent_cited_information. - MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Since that is in a context completely outside of conspiracy theories, it would be helpful for people to participate there more than here when it comes to establishing a groundwork of certain facts. Sennalen (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you just preen off whatever Western Marxists you feel are cultural Marxists, and discuss that terms usage in a section of Marxist cultural analysis? That's the foundation you should be working on, then you can include the section you construct as a link on Western Marxism.

That seems easier (and like a stronger tactical foothold) than trying to erase the structural Marxists included in Western Marxist discourse by smearing an inappropriate and generally critical label on them (or attempting to at least). 14.202.44.246 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Apparently I missed a great flurry of discussions while I was preoccupied with (small) professional development opportunities. Notably I missed this restatement of Sennalen's position (in particular, Fortunately, there are lots of other sources in the article establishing that "cultural Marxism" historically was a value-neutral phrase denoting Western Marxism or the Frankfurt School, and still can be). This is one of the things Sennalen believes fervently to be true but which the facts do not support - see the closed discussion above, but see also the discussion at Talk:Western Marxism#Removal of pertinent cited information of Sennalen's proposed insertion of the "synonym" claim (in this edit). Unfortunately, neither the Oxford Reference source Sennalen added initially, nor the multiple citations they added later, actually back up the "neutral term of art"/"synonym" claim on which much of Sennalen's argument - including the present lede proposal here - ultimately rests. Many of the citations given by Sennalen (in the second linked edit to Western Marxism) don't refer to cultural Marxism at all, or do so only to designate an activity. Meanwhile, the only source in Sennalen's list referring to a "term of art" isn't talking about a "neutral" term at all, but rather a term of art used to disparage the canon of Western Marxist thought as propagating a conspiracy to undermine presumably traditional Western values. This is the conspiracy theory once again, folks, just as the OED's said to be promoted by left-wing ideologues intent on eroding traditional social values and imposing a dogmatic form of progressivism on society is a reference to the conspiracy theory and is not some newer and more "evolved" meaning of the term. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the wording the "conspiracy theories are...claims" is grammatical. Wouldn't we instead say that advocates of theories make claims?

Also, the fact that the theory predates its name isn't relevant. Most belief systems acquire their names after they originate.

TFD (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think the longstanding lead is superior to any of the ones suggested here, and strongly oppose any change - no valid issues have been raised with the current lead, which is perfect as it stands; it's concise and easily conveys a complicated topic. In comparison, "proponents of" is really weird phrasing. This article covers both the conspiracy theory and the neologism that its proponents use for it, which is a phrase or term. The current lead is appropriate in that regard and changing it (especially for one so much more clunky) would be inappropriate. And, of course, the description of it as a ...far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness is the core definition of the topic, concisely summarizing the key points of the article, and clearly cannot be removed or substantially trimmed. The proposal above doesn't even seem to provide an actual rationale for that part of the proposed change. Additionally, I'll point out that several of the key points of the longstanding lead were affirmed in discussions above - while of course WP:CCC, I'm not really seeing much indication that it has. --Aquillion (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with this characterization. Does any other editor agree with Aquillion that the lede is "perfect as it stands" and "superior to any of the ones suggested"? In just the past few days, Mathglot, Generalrelative, I am a Leaf, Firefangledfeathers, Senelan, and I have proposed different changes to the lede. There is no consensus that the current lead is "perfect." Moreover, your argument does not address the specific MOS:OPEN points that Senelan has raised; instead, it attempts to sidestep the issue through a dogmatic appeal to perfection. XMcan (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Let's not overstate things please. FFF's suggestion above (and Mathglot's below) are small tweaks to the existing language. I am perfectly happy with the opening statement as-is, and agree with The Hand That Feeds You that Sennalen's points are without merit. Generalrelative (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it is quite as bad as that but I do agree that the existing text is fine. That doesn't mean that improvement is impossible but it does mean that change is not necessary unless the change is demonstrably better. As it is, I'm not greatly keen on the proposal because it pluralises "theories" and because it names the United States (letting Lobster Boy off the hook). I think a reworked version could have a chance but I'm also not sure that it is worth it given that the existing text is fine. DanielRigal (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Limiting the scope of my comment to just the "refers to" issue, I think it's easier than meets the eye. What's wrong with just "refers to" ⟶ "is a", as in the following:

The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

Or am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind this change, although as I have mentioned in prior talk threads, this unfortunately defines the conspiracy theory in terms of it's common grievances, rather than defining the conspiracy theory in terms of its claims.

I would probably change the lead to "Cultural Marxism" is a term so amorphous that it's critics and proponents cannot seem to agree on what the term even refers to.

Just kidding. In all seriousness, mentioning William Lind would be a good idea in the lead. It seems this theory is almost wholly his brainchild, as the article elaborates on. I know some on this talk page have issues with describing the theory at arms-length, such as saying "the theory is criticized as x, y and z" and would rather say "the theory is x, y and z." I think describing the theory as being posited by a human makes the theory seem less credible facially, while also maintaining neutrality. The mention the laundry list of criticisms could remain. I think everyone would be happy with this sort of change, although I might be wrong.

Practically everyone here agrees that the theory is academically dubious and widely criticized (as it is a conspiracy theory after all). We should be forthright that the theory was developed and propagated by an American man who self-describes as a paleo-conservative and who has said overtly antisemitic things and has engaged in holocaust denial.

I think a great lead would be "Cultural Marxism refers to a conspiracy theory first advanced by [conservative antisemite] William Lind, and now includes a loose variety of conspiracy theories generally linking the Frankfurt School to modern progressive movements. . ." I am a Leaf (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd split the difference:

The term "Cultural Marxism" is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory first advanced by William S. Lind. It misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

That seems the most concise way of summarizing things. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I personally like this a lot. It largely addresses my issues with this article's adherence to WP:NPOV while keeping the content which many argue is WP:DUE. I would change it now, but i'd prefer consensus. The only thing i'd change is

The term "Cultural Marxism" is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory first advanced by William S. Lind. It misrepresents the Frankfurt School's influence on modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

Based on this article, the biggest issue that critics of this theory have (in terms of misrepresentation) is that the Frankfurt School was not nearly as influential as the proponents of this conspiracy theory claim. The misrepresented influence I think is really where the assertion of antisemitism is most visible, as generally this claim of undue influence on progressive politics is where this conspiracy theory seems to overlap most with common antisemitic canards.

That being said, I would accept the sentence as you proposed it. I am a Leaf (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think adding influence is softballing it too much & would leave it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a change has actually been justified, and I don't think we should weaken the lead. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The term is not a conspiracy theory; a term is not its referent, just as a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. William Avery (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen rightly raised earlier that it was in fact Martin Jay's viewpoint that the concept of "Cultural Marxism" without the name started in the LaRouche/Minnicino article (I accidentally thought it was Chip Berlet's opinion, but it's Martin Jay) - so you guys have inadvertently disregarded the chief and foremost historian of The Frankfurt School Martin Jay.

Of course, Martin Jay was kinda scrambling after after having been misled into a documentary made by the Free Congress Foundation. So by name, yes William S. Lind is the originator of the theory. But according to Martin Jay, it's LaRouche/Minnicino. Personally I'm fine with this change, because I go by the name, and the fact that the theory focuses on The Frankfurt School as the origin of "Cultural Marxism". Just thought it was worth noting here. 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) 60.241.181.126 (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking into the Martin Jay source, which can be found here [7] and is linked to from the bio of Martin Jay found on Marcuse.org here [8] - it states:

Patrick Buchanan's 2001 best-selling screed against the nefarious impact of immigration, The Death of the West, was one major source, stigmatizing as it did the Frankfurt School for promoting "cultural Marxism" (a recycling of the old Weimar conservative charge of "cultural Bolshevism" aimed at aesthetic modernists). But the opening salvo had, in fact, been fired a decade earlier in a lengthy essay by one Michael Minnicino called "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'," published in 1992 in the obscure journal Fidelio.[4] Its provenance is particularly telling: it was an organ of the Lyndon Larouche movement cum cult, one of the less savory curiosities of nightmare fringe politics.

...and references his involvement with Lind's documentary. As the topic of antisemitism has come up on this page, I'll also include a paragraph from that Martin Jay source about antisemitism in the conspiracy theory (it states that an actual WW2 Nazi Lazlo Pasztor was used in Lind's documentary).

There is a transparent subtext in the original CFC program, which is not hard to discern and has become more explicit with each telling of the narrative. Although there is scarcely any direct reference to the ethnic origins of the School's members, subtle hints allow the listener to draw his own conclusions about the provenance of foreigners who tried to combine Marx and Freud, those giants of critical Jewish intelligence. At one point, William Lind asserts that "once in America they shifted the focus of their work from destroying German society to attacking the society and culture of its new place of refuge,"[7] as if the very people who had to flee the Nazis had been responsible for what they were fleeing![8] Airtime is also given to another of Weyrich's colleagues at the FCF, Lazlo Pasztor, who is innocently identified as a "leader of the Hungarian resistance against Communism," but had already been discredited a decade earlier as a former member of the pro-Nazi "Arrow Cross," who had to leave the Bush campaign in 1988 when he was outed.

60.241.181.126 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen's proposal is a reasonable start. If the article lead with "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories are unfounded claims about the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism, particularly among United States political conservatives since the 1990s." The very next sentence should make it crystal clear that some of the promoters of CMCTs are known anti-Semites.

If the lede was structured like that, I would 100% support it. We can discuss the exact wording, but leading with CMCTs would address many concerns and prevent repeated discussions about whether CM means exactly CMCT, and whether CMCTs are always used for anti-Semitic purposes (as discussed in other open threads).

XMcan (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Background section focuses on the wrong topic.

The Background section is basically (from the 2nd paragraph on wards) a background of The Frankfurt School, and seems to pass off the phrase "cultural Marxism" as definitely another term for The Frankfurt School. I've seen cultural Marxism refer to early Cultural Studies, The Birmingham School, E.P. Thompson, and just plain, Marxist ideas around culture in general. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].

Ideally, the background section of this page about the conspiracy theory - would provide background focused on the conspiracy theory, mentioning the main targets where relevant - rather than focusing on painting the fairly vague academic phrase "cultural Marxism" as definitely the same thing as the main target of the conspiracy theory.

To be clear, I think it's far more accurate to say that "cultural Marxism" has been used within Cultural Studies to reference The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P. Thompson. Omitting mention of Cultural studies as the intended meaning, as well as avoiding mention of these other groups to which the academic usage refers (as the current section does) - gives far too much credence to the Conspiracy Theory. Writing out a history of The Frankfurt School as if their history somehow caused The Conspiracy Theory, is downright endorsing/priming for believers in the conspiracy (and hence, in terms of the academic usage, fails WP:NPOV).

This, the background section of the page ABOUT the conspiracy theory, should focus on the background FOR the conspiracy theory. Which has its origins in right wing an antisemitic groups. It should not be a place to steel man the idea that the academic usage and conspiracy usage are the same thing, nor that the phrase is just another term for "The Frankfurt School". It's not. The phrase "cultural Marxism" in the academic sense, is closer to being shorthand for "Marxist cultural studies" - which then relates and refers to The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, E.P Thompson and others.

It's more than just a history of The Frankfurt School (as the current section makes out) and how they ended up in America (which seems to be a sanitized preamble of the very Conspiracy Theory its self). 60.241.181.126 (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact when the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was created it did not use the term cultural Marxism. The term was later adopted as an update of cultural Bolshevism. It was even later before the conspiracists found that the term was used by some members of the Frankfurt School. TFD (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is no RS for any causal relationship between "cultural Bolshevism" and the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. What we have is 20th century opinion columnists saying the two phrases sound a lot alike. Sennalen (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead cites to three academic sources. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It cites:

Jay: The Death of the West, was one major source, stigmatizing as it did the Frankfurt School for promoting "cultural Marxism" (a recycling of the old Weimar conservative charge of "cultural Bolshevism" aimed at aesthetic modernists). But the opening salvo had, in fact, been fired a decade earlier in a lengthy essay by one Michael Minnicino

Busbridge: The term Cultural Marxism is indeed reminiscent of Kulturbolshewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)

Woods: Several commentaries on the Frankfurt School conspiracy focus on the anti-Semitic implications of these narratives. Most of them claim that the paleoconservative myth of cultural Marxism is simply an updated version of NAZI propaganda about “cultural Bolshevism” and “Weimar degeneracy” (both tropes depended on obscene and offensive anti-Semitic caricatures). While the Frankfurt School conspiracy has anti-Semitic components, it is inaccurate to call it nothing more than a modernization of cultural Bolshevism propaganda. Such an explanation merely repeats the paleoconservative logic, because it intimates that anti-Semitism is just as foreign to America as cultural Marxism or political correctness. On the contrary, the latent anti-Semitism of Lind’s documentary is profoundly American.

The verdict is mixed at best. Jay says the phrases are linked, but explicitly disconnects it from the origin of the conspiracy theory. Busbridge just says they look similar. Woods says the conspiracy theory is anti-Semitic but explicitly rejects a causal chain from "cultural Bolshevism". Sennalen (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the background section provides background for the conspiracy theory. Perhaps someone might like to expand it. 194.60.136.6 (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a good criticism, however, an understanding of what the Frankfurt School was, who its adherents and teachers were, what its goals were etc., is valuable for an understanding of at least what the conspiracy theory alleges. If for nothing else, it is difficult to understand how the teachings of the Frankfurt School became twisted without an understanding of what the Frankfurt School taught in the first place. I am a Leaf (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What is valuable for inclusion is determined by policy, not our personal judgment. For example, tertiary says, "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight." Since experts writing about the conspiracy do not go into depth about the Frankfurt School, neither should this article.

I do not see the relevance anyway. It's not as if the conspiracists knew anything about the Frankfurt School (or Marxism) other than they were Jewish Marxists teaching in the U.S. They are not twisting their teachings so much as inventing them. TFD (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Frankfurt School's actual teachings are irrelevant to this article? I think their teachings would be pertinent in the same way that the heliocentric model would be pertinent to the article on geocentrism.

Also, this grievance that "it's not as if the conspiracists knew anything…" suggests you haven't read the article in its entirety. Every unacademic maniac mentioned in the article has a bigger contention with the Frankfurt School than "they were Jewish Marxists teaching in the U.S." Experts writing about the conspiracy theory clearly do go into depth about the Frankfurt School, which is evidenced by the sources within the background section and the Conspiracy Theory section. E.g.,

Michael Minnicino and the LaRouche Movement:

"Minnicino asserted there were two aspects of the Frankfurt School plan to destroy Western culture. Firstly, a cultural critique, by Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin, to use art and culture to promote alienation and replace Christianity with socialism. This included the development of opinion polling and advertising techniques to brainwash the populace and control political campaigning. Secondly, the plan supposedly included attacks on the traditional family structure by Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm to promote women's rights, sexual liberation, and polymorphous perversity to subvert patriarchal authority."

Paul Weyrich & William Lind:

"[Lind] characterized Herbert Marcuse as saying that left victim-groups should be allowed to speak while groups on the right were silenced.[6] Lind said that Marcuse considered a coalition of "Blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals" as a feasible vanguard of cultural revolution in the 1960s.[44] Lind also wrote that Cultural Marxism was an example of fourth-generation warfare.[37]"

The 'conspiracy theory' section would be much harder to read if this article's background was just a history of William Lind and Pat Buchanan's publishing careers and their misunderstandings of the Frankfurt School. It is helpful at least to clarify who allegations are being made against, especially for a group like the Frankfurt School, which many first-time readers might be unfamiliar with who they are and what their concerns were. That is what the current background section does.

Although it might sound ridiculous, perhaps this article would be more clear if (the current content) was organized 'conspiracy theory' and then 'background.' If the contention is that the article should focus more on the background ABOUT the conspiracy theory, that is what the 'Conspiracy Theory' section accomplishes. I am a Leaf (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Marcuse et al did not write about destroying Western culture, replacing Christianity with socialism, brainwashing the populace, political campaigning, or attacking the traditional family structure.

The CM conspiracy theory is merely an updating of Jewish Bolshevism now centered on aa group of Jews living in America. The claims are the same as those made about Bolshevism before the emergence of the Frankfurt School applied to a new target. What this new target actually stood for is incidental.

For example, Lind's statement about Marcuse saying that gays etc. would lead the revolution is unsourced. How can we tell what Marcuse actually said (if anything) about it? My guess is he never said anything about it, but that's OR and cannot go into the article. It's not that they "misunderstood" the school's teachings, it's that they invented them.

Compare this article with another other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, such as Blood libel. It doesn't have a section explaining the Jewish religion. TFD (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Marcuse did not write about destroying Western culture etc., but the beliefs of conspiracy theorists are clearly inferences from what Marcuse et. al. wrote about, rather than being a trope applied blindly to some niche Jewish academics because they were Jewish.

As for Lind's statement on Marcuse, the article attributes the quote to Lind, that's not OR, that's what the conspiracy theorists say. Lind said that Marcuse considered a coalition of "Blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals" as a feasible vanguard of cultural revolution in the 1960s," in 'What is Cultural Marxism' [source 42 in the article]. While Lind doesn't attribute this to any particular writing, he was talking about Marcuse in the 50s, so my guess is he's talking about Eros and Civilization. Who knows.

In any event, i'm not adding anything to the article regarding this. I think you should read the article if you haven't. Read the sources too, there is a wealth of information suggesting this theory is more than merely a rehashing of antisemitic tropes.

I also don't think the Blood libel page needs to explain Judaism. The teachings of Judaism are wholly irrelevant to the idea of Blood Libel. However, the beliefs of conspiracy theorists are 100% relevant to an article on a conspiracy theory. I am a Leaf (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That being said, I agree that the Background section could be improved and naturally, this should be according to wikipedia's policies. I only comment to say I see the relevance of such a discussion in the background section. Also, I hope you and all who read this enjoyed the holiday. I am a Leaf (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

If anyone actually doubts that the conspiracy theory is about the Frankfurt School, I invite them to consider that Minnicino wrote The single, most important organizational component of this conspiracy was a Communist thinktank called the Institute for Social Research (I.S.R.), but popularly known as the Frankfurt School. Lind's speech is 75% just a chronology of the founding of the ISR. The Birmingham group does not appear to have been on the conspiracy theorists radar, but if that's a line of interest I can bring some scholarship on how the Frankfurt School and British cultural Marxism were coterminous.

What makes the conspiracy theory wrong, or dangerous, or just worth paying attention to has nothing to do with the phrase "cultural Marxism". It's because the ideas are false, descriminatory, and used to foment violence. It's a fun house mirror version of the Frankfurt School where some parts are perfectly normal and others are distorted or made up.

I don't know how people got stuck on the idea that everything turns on this phrase, "cultural Marxism". So what we have is people constantly showing up at the article itching to fight nazis without understanding a single thing about the topic. So we are constantly getting bogged down arguing about "Were they really Marxist?", "Were they really feminist?", "Were they really involved with the student movement?" because people have no idea which parts are actually true or false. That is the reason it is so important to have a background section that is thorough and free of distractions — so that readers have a frame of reference for what is true, in order to better understand what is false. Sennalen (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all of us here are concerned with what is true and what is false.

Also, do not assume that no one involved in this discussion is not broadly familiar with the primary and major secondary sources on the actual academic work being misrepresented with respect to both its content and real-world influence.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that a lot of the heat on this topic has arisen from debating whether the conspiracy theory is based on some underlying reality - including by a distortion of that reality - or not. This is of course a continuum rather than a binary, but when some editors argue that "Cultural Marxism" designated a particular group of thinkers and set of ideas prior to, and outside of, the conspiracy theory, that doesn’t only raise the hackles of those concerned about "fighting the NAZIs". It will also provoke opposition for those who have never seen the term used in this supposedly "neutral" way, and who see the few sources typically proposed to support this as obvious (and usually motivated) misreadings.

It also seems to me that the fun house mirror paradigm is actually quite revealing in this context. Would we interpret the Rothschild or Soros conspiracy theories as holding up a "fun house mirror" to the actual activities of those historical actors? I don't think we would - especially in Wikivoice - and I haven't seen any evidence that the CM conspiracy theory cuts any closer to its supposed basis than the others do to actual Soros or the Rothschilds. Attempts to discern what the "truth behind the" CM conspiracy theory might be, on this page, seem to me always to involve WP:OR and specific, often personal, interpretations by editors of what is assumed to be "actually true". This isn't what editors are supposed to be doing, IMO.

So in relation to the lead sentence, I am resistant to any formulation that presents "Cultural Marxism" as something that could relate to the conspiracy theory but might have some meaning elsewhere as a value-neutral "term of art". I don't think any quality sources for that latter claim exist, and editors should certainly not be fostering any citogenesis that would bring it into being. Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Saying that the Frankfurt School is the "most important organizational component," is not the same as saying it is about them. Various other individuals are claimed to be part of the conspiracy. Do we need to explain their views as well? TFD (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Like whom? The conspiracy theory is concerned with a Marxist plot to subvert western civilization and the Frankfurt School is the most common scapegoat for this plot. I don't think this page could even say what's wrong with the conspiracy theory without introducing the Frankfurt School and their actual teachings. I am a Leaf (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Like Rudi Dutschke, Angela Davis, the Students for a Democratic Society, David Riesman, C. Wilbur Mills, Gramsci and Camus, as well as Marxist-Leninist leaders including Stalin, Castro and Mao. And of course they count as advocates mainstream Democrats such as the Clintons, Obama and Biden. Also civil rights movements are described as agents of the conspiracy. Basically anyone who isn't a fellow conspiracist could be included as part of the conspiracy.

There is an article about the Frankfort School should anyone want to read about it. The theory centers on them because they were left-wing New York Jews. It has nothing to do with what they actually wrote about. The conspiracists did not misinterpret them: they took an existing conspiracy theory and moved the blame from Jewish Bolsheviks to the Frankfurt School. TFD (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If that's your contention, find some sources indicating what you claim. Plenty of sources in the article indicate the theory is bigger than that, and I'd think the Jewish people who believe in 'cultural marxism' would be able to discern the theory for what it is, if that is actually the case.

I think you're doing yourself a disservice for reducing this conspiracy theory to merely an antisemitic trope. I agree that there are similarities in the rhetoric used by proponents of "cultural bolshevism" and proponents of "cultural marxism," but to take this reductionist attitude almost suggests you haven't bothered reading the article or any of its sources. Anyway, if there is no recommendation for changes to the article, this conversation need not continue. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course I have read the article. Have you ever read anything by a member of the Frankfurt School other than in texts pushing the conspiracy theory?

I don't know what you want sources for. There are no sources that say what this article should say about the Frankfurt School. However, policy says that we should say as much or as little as rs about CM do. The SPLC article, "Cultural Marxism", for example says nothing about the school.

Even if your suggestion is against policy, I still don't understand your reasoning. Why would we for example explain Judaism in an article about blood libel? Doing so would only provide credence to the theory.

TFD (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The SPLC source mentions William Lind as a proponent of the theory, and if you read anything by William Lind (which you can do while categorically rejecting what he says), you would see his thesis regarding "Cultural Marxism" is that it's completely the fault of the Frankfurt School.

I really do not mean to disparage you, despite the fact you seem to think i'm a conspiracy theorist, (i'm just someone who likes to read primary sources). But in all honesty, it seems like willful ignorance of the topic or disingenuousness if you think it's possible to discuss the conspiracy theory without mentioning the Frankfurt School. It's like you want to talk about a conspiracy theory about moon landings without talking about the moon.

Here, for example is Lind's "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology"

[16]

in which Lind mentions the Frankfurt School on page 5 (really, page 2 since the first 3 are a title page and introduction). This article, and the SPLC article you linked, correctly identifies William Lind as the originator of this theory, if that is the case (it is) than it is also the case that understanding at least who the Frankfurt School is is necessary to understand what this conspiracy theory alleges by its proponents. I am a Leaf (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Chiming in in favor of TFD's interpretation of policy here. There is a difference between discussing and mentioning. The present article needs to mention the Frankfurt School, with an appropriately placed Wikilink which readers can follow if they're interested in learning more, and it needs to mention that the conspiracy theory misrepresents the Frankfurt School according to the consensus of mainstream scholars (per WP:FRINGE). But discussing the Frankfurt school in depth would be UNDUE, and possibly WP:COATRACK. Honestly I think the SPLC piece TFD just linked to does a great job threading this needle. Our article should follow the balance of WP:ASPECTs given there. Generalrelative (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, regarding Blood Libel, I said "I also don't think the Blood libel page needs to explain Judaism. The teachings of Judaism are wholly irrelevant to the idea of Blood Libel. However, the beliefs of conspiracy theorists are 100% relevant to an article on a conspiracy theory."

So I kindly ask you please read my comments before making suggestions about them/my reasoning. I am a Leaf (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The teachings of the Frankfurt School are similarly wholly irrelevant to the CM conspiracy theory. What's the difference? According to the Blood libel theory, it was a conspiracy motivated by Jewish teachings. According to these teachings, drinking the blood of Christian children during Passover or using it to make matzo would enable the Jews to return to the Holy Land. TFD (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to know anything about Judaism to say that Jews killed Jesus, all you need is a loose understanding of what the gospels say. You do need to know something about the Frankfurt School to allege the Frankfurt School is responsible for modern progressive movements, pc, etc. Especially when the lede claims that the Frankfurt School's teachings are "misrepresented" by the theory. It is only fair that we describe what the proper representation, at least in a cursory way. I am a Leaf (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, did you argue that you don't understand "my reasoning" of why i'd include teachings of Judaism in the Blood Libel article, then (after learning you misrepresented my comment) you gave your reasoning as to why the teachings of Judaism are relevant to the article? Do you believe what you say or are you just being pointlessly contrarian?

Regardless of your answer, this discussion has gone too off topic.

As far as the original topic, I think the background section is appropriate as is, and if anything should be expanded as to better display to readers why this conspiracy theory misrepresents the Frankfurt School's teachings, as the Frankfurt School is the central scapegoat of this conspiracy theory, and understanding what they actually teach is necessary to understand what the conspiracy theorists misinterpreted, without knowing both, readers will not have a complete understanding of this conspiracy theory, what it alleges, and why it is incorrect. Have a good day. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Blood libel is not the theory that the Jews killed Jesus, but that Jewish doctrine leads Jews to kill Christian children. If I understand you correctly, your view is that everyone knows that's a lie so there is no reason to explain the Jewish religion. But maybe you think it is credible that these New York Jews are trying to destroy Western civilization, so a full explanation of their views is required. Otherwise, what is the difference? TFD (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This has gone far too off topic, and you no longer seem interested in addressing any arguments pertaining to this article.

My view is if we allege that something is misrepresented, we should show the proper representation, and then show how the misrepresentation deviates from that. For this article, that would require an explanation of what the Frankfurt School teaches (the proper representation, at least an overview of what is needed to recognize what is misrepresented). This is what the background section does.

You seem to think the people who came up with this conspiracy theory did so solely because the Frankfurt School was made up of Jewish academics, rather than because these conspiracy theorists believed the Frankfurt School taught objectionable material and wanted to twist the Frankfurt School's teachings to appear even more subversive to conservatives/anti-Marxists. I do believe this conspiracy theory is, to its proponents, more of the latter than it is an objection of the religion of the academics.

I disagree with your characterization of this conspiracy theory, and if we cannot agree on that point, it makes perfect sense we would be unable to discuss what would be relevant in the background section. I am a Leaf (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, it seems I mixed up Blood libel and Jewish deicide. My mistake. Blood libel as an antisemitic conspiracy theory seems to have originated from a flawed historicity, there is no need to go over the teachings of Judaism, except to say that the religion rejects human sacrifice. This conspiracy (this is where we seem to disagree), has a flawed reading of cultural critique, and those who allege the conspiracy theory as true do not seem to be concerned as much with the members of the Frankfurt School as much as it is with the School's teachings (which is why I disagree with the characterization of this conspiracy as merely a rehashing of an antisemitic trope). This is why I believe the School's teachings in this article are more relevant than Judaism's teachings are relevant to the blood libel accusations. I came to this conclusion after reading the current background section (and sources), which is why I have suggested it repeatedly. I am a Leaf (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

But there is nothing in the Frankfurt School's teachings about overthrowing Western civilization any more than there is anything in the Jewish religion about killing children. In both cases, Jews are scapegoated without regard to facts.

Also, do you think we should explain the entire teachings of the Frankfurt School? Do readers need to know that Adorno thought Fascists had psychological abnormalities, that homosexuality resulted from hyper-masculinization or that pornography resulted from capitalism? What specifically do you think the article should explain? TFD (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the article already does a good job and focuses on the correct topic. Mentioning what/who the Frankfurt School is, giving a broad overview of the commonly distorted ideas of the school (e.g., the school's relationship with totalitarianism being perhaps the most often distorted, at least by Lind, repressive tolerance, critical pedagogy and its relation to political correctness, Eros and Civilization as it's often connected to sexual liberation). And concluding with the origin of the "New Right." Perhaps the section could be slightly less biographical, but otherwise is in solid shape with all the links. I am a Leaf (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)